I don't really like "systems" for ranking and scoring people in general, but just as an exercise in systems design here, what about this for a strategy? 1. Eac

I don't really like "systems" for ranking and scoring people in general, but just as an exercise in systems design here, what about this for a strategy? 1. Each manager gives their people an absolute score 2. A meta-manager checks in with all managers over the course of the year and keeps tabs on performance of a randomly selected group of people (some scalable fraction of the total workforce. As this number goes up you could hire a few more people to do this job). 3. Each meta-manager looks for obvious goofy scoring discrepancies (how can person A have a lower rating than person B?). 4. Each manager is on the hook to defend those ratings in the face of scrutiny to justify why they rated Tony Terrible better than Andy Awesome. This expectation of accountability prevents them from inflating their scores too much. Sort of like QA for management assessments.